| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing |
| Date: | 2018-07-03 17:37:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20180703173724.inntgdgg6goeslbd@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-07-03 13:23:50 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-03, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > I'm not clear to why this is a problem? Seems like either behaviour can
> > be argued for. I don't really have an opinion either way. I'd just
> > remove the item from the open items list, I don't think we need to hold
> > up the release for it?
>
> After reading this more carefully, isn't the problem that as soon as you
> get a slot into the 0/1 restart_lsn state, WAL recycling/deletion no
> longer happens? That does sound like a bad thing to me.
Fair enough, but that's what a plain slot allows you as well, pretty
fundamentally, no? The precise point at which recycling will be blocked
will differer, sure.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-07-03 17:51:48 | Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-07-03 17:23:50 | Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing |